Slashdot Mirror


New Closed Source Voting Systems Malfunction

LowellPorter writes "Miami-Dade and Broward counties are having voting problems. After the 2000 election problems, new voting methods were installed including touch screen technology. Some times the problems were with workers not showing up, poor training, or mechanical problems. It doesn't look like they cleaned up the system there." Not all of the problems mentioned in the article are due to the new proprietary voting machines, but many of them are.

29 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. This doesn't make sense... by jsonmez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How hard is it to make a voting machine that works? All it does is count votes, it's not like it does rocket science!

    1. Re:This doesn't make sense... by Orne · · Score: 3, Funny

      Its those darn conversions again, going from binary to decimal!

    2. Re:This doesn't make sense... by Zathrus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it's so amazingly simple, feel free to go ahead and make it!

      Don't forget that it has to be insanely easy to use, with extremely clear instructions and adaptable to an infinite number of configurations for different polling uses.

      It also has to be capable of verifying that the voter is valid, that the ballot is valid, and that it itself is valid (i.e. - has not been tampered with).

      You either need secured local storage or a secure connection to another storage facility (whether that be onsite or offsite). If local, you need to make sure the data won't be destroyed by substandard handling (see below).

      It must be rugged, portable, easy to setup, and low cost.

      It must save state, so that if it does crash the current voter doesn't get screwed. Optimally they should be able to go to another voting machine to finish their ballot.

      Let us know when you've finished. Don't forget this is both a hardware and software solution. We'll be waiting.

    3. Re:This doesn't make sense... by Zathrus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you've ignored 90% of the issues.

      It does have to validate itself, period. If you don't then a hack of the system can invalidate every vote cast on it. Worse, it can fake the votes in such a way that you wouldn't be able to tell that they were invalid.

      And you totally ignored the UI, ruggedness, and flexibility issues.

      Not to mention that there appeared to be little or no problems with the voting machines. According to the article the problems were human ones.

    4. Re:This doesn't make sense... by CoughDropAddict · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the problem is so difficult, how is it that ATMs (which target an extremely similar problem) have been in widespread use for years?

    5. Re:This doesn't make sense... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's wrong with the system that works so well and reliably in other places: using a pen, put a big cross in the box next to the person/answer being voted for. Any other marks invalidates the ballot slip.

      One thing that's wrong with that is it makes it ridiculously simple to invalidate ballots after they are cast.

    6. Re:This doesn't make sense... by david.given · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it's so amazingly simple, feel free to go ahead and make it!

      Okay. Let's see. Let's use cardboard voting slips, with pencils.

      • Intuitive --- check. Everyone knows how to make marks on paper. Put an X in the box next to the name of your candidate. Because the slips aren't machine-read, you don't have to cater to the machines, so you can put the boxes next to the candidate's name.
      • Self-validating --- check. The human who counts the voting slip can tell at a glance if it's been filled out correctly. You can verify that each person has voted only once by keeping a list of people eligable to vote at each polling station, and crossing their names off the list.
      • Secure storage --- check. Well, not quite. You need a box with a padlock on it and a slit in the lid, and a seal to indicate tampering. Seals are old technology. Trivial money from your local hardware store.
      • Rugged, portable, low cost --- check. Carboard is cheap. Printed cardboard is cheap. It's also tough; if you use pencils rather than pens, then even if a filled box is submersed in water, the votes can still be read (carefully).
      • Saves state --- check. Each vote is physically encoded on to a piece of cardboard, which can be counted as many times as is necessary to get it right. Won't crash. Ever.

      So: we have a cheap, simple, secure voting system that's hard to spoof (with adequate physical security), easy to use, and with excellent accountability. You still need to count the votes, of course; here in the UK, we use volunteer bank tellers, who are really good at this sort of thing. The system scales really well, because each voting region is sized by population, and each area has about the same ratio of bank tellers to non bank tellers. The votes are counted in O(n) where n is the number of votes in the largest area, and then the results are phoned in to a central location.

      And it all still works if the power goes out.

      Why do we need machines, again?

    7. Re:This doesn't make sense... by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Informative
      In Britain the vote is hand counted.

      Typically the first results pour in within a couple of hours of the polls closing. Almost all of the constuencies have been completely counted and agreed in the small hours of the following morning, enough to ensure that generally the leaders of the winning/losing parties have made their victory speeches or conceded by 2am. Generally it's rare anyone is still counting, save for recounts, after the sun comes up.

      I know 2000 was a fiasco, but it was immediately clear to me (as a Brit in the US) that any announcement about winners and losers would have had to be on the basis of predictions, not results. America can be counted by that time not because of punched cards but because by a certain enough votes have been counted in each state for it to be clear which states are going to fall for to which candidates. Counting continues for days, even without recounts.

      I honestly don't think punched cards, etc, help as much as they might appear. There's a lot to be said for accountable human beings counting. Not the least of which is that human beings know what it means when they see a piece of paper with two 'X's in it - one of which is scribbled on with the word "mistake". Punched card readers simply reject the vote, with certain nuts (generally, anyone who's won the election) saying that anyone who "voted twice" is too much of an idiot to have their vote counted.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  2. What's with the headline? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would any of these problems be solved with an open source solution? Do these problems have anything at all to do with the fact that the solution is closed source? Is the fact that these systems are closed source ironic, or telling in any way?

    Your headline is about as biased as "Microsoft User Commits Murder"

  3. Journalism By Telepaths? by reallocate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. The article doesn't tell us that the software is proprietary. Nor does it tell us that most of the problems are due to the use of closed software. Anyone wondering if Slashdot is an example of journalism or just a bunch of poseurs-for-hire tossing words around need look no further.

    2. So anyway, why would we expect open source to work any better?

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  4. Oh, yeah, open source v1's are SO much better by Brento · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have you *ever* seen v1 of a system work flawlessly? It's so immature to toss the word "proprietary" in here, as if to insinuate that being open-source would fix anything. There's tons of open-source programs in v1 status with bugs. Anybody see any news headlines when Mozilla 1.0 came out and there were bugs in it? No? End of story.

    --
    What's your damage, Heather?
  5. Disclaimer by daeley · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ahem: This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.

    --
    I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. It wasn't the tech's fault.. by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Informative

    This isn't a "linux would have saved the day" story.. This same quote is reiterated and paraphrased throughout the article:

    "She said many poll workers did not wait for the full six-minute activation procedure to occur and then became nervous and uncertain."

    The workers just don't know how to use the machines. Either that or Jan the Man wants to play the "I didnt really lose! it was the hanging chads!" game.

    Perhaps Florida is hopelessly stupid. Something to do with a close proximity to DisneyWorld. (that explains the lesser but omni-present stupidity in California too. DisneyLand isn't as big.)

    How about a "blink once for yes, blink twice for no" system?

    Or set up a "Honk if you love Reno!" sign and count the horns.

    Or something involving hot grits or business plans or a beowulf cluster "of these"

    I can't hear the word 'gubernatorial' without giggling.

    Next story please.. I used up too much karma on this one.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  8. Let's see by ocie · · Score: 5, Funny

    45,128 votes for Bush
    45,132 votes for Gore
    2,000,000 write in votes for Bill Gates.

    Wha?

    --
    JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
  9. Forget the High-Tech solution... by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 5, Funny

    We need to give up on these fancy high-tech solutions that are so buggy and difficult for old people to use. Go with what they know, and what works...
    Make the ballots like bingo cards. Give each voter a card and a daubber. I've seen grandmothers that can't work a toaster, but they can turn around and fill in 10 different bingo cards at a high rate. Not to mention that you almost never see them make a mistake filling out one of those cards.
    This would solve the whole boot problem and software bugs. The logistics of it would be no different than the old punch cards, but with a lower chad pregnancy rate.

    --
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    Laziness is the father.
  10. A simple solution to vote counting problems by rufusdufus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the main problems with voting is that each individual voter doesn't know if their vote was properly counted, and has no recourse if the their vote was miscounted. One reason for this limitation is that the vote is anonymous, so you can't keep track of what happened to your vote.
    My idea is to give each voter a secret unique identifier randomly generated at the poll. An online database would keep track of which identifier went with what vote. Then, anybody who had doubts about thier vote could look up to see if they were counted properly. If not, they could use thier receipt to petition for a revote. In the event that enough people complained within the deadline, the entire vote would be redone.

    1. Re:A simple solution to vote counting problems by 5KVGhost · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think it would be so simple in practice:

      1) What's to stop someone from lying and claiming that their vote was miscounted once the votes had been tallied, or being coerced/bribed/persuaded into fraudulently changing their vote after the fact?

      2) If a complete re-vote could be forced simply by a large number of complaints, with no means to tell if the complaints are valid or not, then a large enough group of unscrupulous (or misguided) voters could challenge any election which didn't give the results they wanted. (Combining this with existing voter fraud techniques could create a block of phantom voters just for this purpose.)

      3) What's to prevent someone else from reading and/or challenging your vote if they obtain your number, or if they are able to fraudulently generate a valid random identifier?

      4) When someone comes forward to claim that their vote was miscounted, they'd no longer be anonymous. Sure, they could use their secret number to check the status of the vote and remain anonymous (technical issues aside) but at some point the person casting the vote would need to identify themselves in person before casting a corrected ballot. Remember, the result of your vote is anonymous, but you aren't; you must register and be identified before you're a valid voter.

  11. Openness is critical in insuring fair elections by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would any of these problems be solved with an open source solution? Do these problems have anything at all to do with the fact that the solution is closed source? Is the fact that these systems are closed source ironic, or telling in any way?

    Yes, yes, and yes, it is telling.

    Openness is absolutely critical to fair and free elections, and that applies to the technology as much as it does the people. Who knows what is being done with the data being collected, or how it is being massaged. Is every electronic vote counted? Do we know that the results being reported are accurate, or whether or not a systemic flaw (or deliberate alteration) in the software is causing every Nth republican or democratic vote to be dropped? No, we don't know this, because the software's source code is unavailable for public review, much less peer review.

    There are all kinds of Microsoft apologists (not saying you are one, but the vast majority of posts taking a tone similiar to yours are, as evidenced by their posting histories) quick to point out that having untrained election officials has nothing to do with the closed source nature of the software, yet eagerly glossing over the profoundly obvious fact that if the election software is closed source, no amount of training can insure that the software is unbiased and the election results fair.

    So the point is relevant, even if it does rub the closed source advocates and Microsoft zealots the wrong way.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:Openness is critical in insuring fair elections by goldspider · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I think your paranoia is a little over the top, friend.

      First of all, the parent post wasn't saying anything to the effect of the fairness of the machines' tallying methods. Any system can be compromised by unscrupulous character, be it manual hand counting or rigged counting algorithms.

      The point the parent's post was making is that the article was titled in such a way that the root cause of the problems experienced was that the voting software was closed source. Not only is that sensationalist, it's simply untrue. Any system can break if those expected to use it can't figure out how to do so.

      So the story had nothing to do with the fairness of the machines, and little to do with technical problems within the software itself. It certainly made no case that any of it could have been solved with open source. So please, editors, stop trying to make these stories into something they're not.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    2. Re:Openness is critical in insuring fair elections by FreeUser · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think your paranoia is a little over the top, friend.

      I live in Chicago. It isn't paranoia, it is experience. Election fraud is an ugly, real part of life, and any system that is open to abuse will be abused by one party or the other.

      Closed source, proprietary systems whose inner workings are not open to public review and peer review are vastly more susceptable to this sort of thing than open, easilly examined and proofed source code are.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  12. voting machines are stupid by DABANSHEE · · Score: 5, Interesting
    What is it with America's love of voting machines? The vast majority of countries don't use then, including most of the OECD - really the only reason for the US using machines is because they're stupid & vote on Tuesday, not Saturday. Yet they wonder why they have the lowest voter turnout in the world, afterall what percentage of people with minimum wage jobs get paid time off to vote? (the minimum wage is probably the mode average wage in the US, or close to it, as the US has the biggest gap between mode & mean average wages in the Western World,) Plus finding casual labour, for hand counting, & volunteer scrutineers, is much harder on a Tuesday, compared with a Saturday.

    But haven't you bloody Americans learnt the KISS system - Keep It Simple Stupid.

    This means no bloody machines, period !!! If Australia (& most of the OECD) can do hand counted paper ballots, then so can the US.

    The only reason they use machine systems in the US is to cut costs, but the simple fact is they arn't as good - they invalidate more votes then hand counts do, they intimidate & confuse a good percentage of voters & they increase the odds of something fuking up (murphy's law)

    Look at the mess, as well as the fucked up punch card machines you have counties with lever machines, other with optical machines, toggle switch machines, push button machines & also touch screen systems too. Then there are places like Oregon where all votes are of the mail in variety (which obviously discriminates against the homeless & disorginised). The simple fact is that huge numbers of people are intimidated with this complicated mess that's one of the reasons why most Americans don't vote & why the US has the lowest voter turnout in the OECD

    Look at all the people that are intimidated by machines & even now still refuse to use Automatic Teller Machines, & there are plenty more people like that then just the illiterate, the elderly & immigrants that have poor 2nd language skills.

    Its as if the bureaucracy in the US are on purposefully trying to discourage the masses from voting.

    The only way to go is to Keep It Simple Stupid. Which means aiming at the lowest common denominator & designing a system that the stupidist simpleton can understand.

    Which means 'X marks the spot' hand ballots.


    That means a peice of paper with the candidates listed in a columne & another columne of boxes on the side with just one box next to each candidate.

    Here are a couple of examples of 'KISS' paper ballots, the 1st one is an example of an Australian preferential ballot (any Americans who support 3rd parties should be demanding that the US system be made either preferential or proportional, otherwise no 3rd parties will ever make any long term headway), the 2nd ballot is an example of an ''X' marks the spot' ballot.

    As far as counting goes the US should be doing what Australia does (& most of the rest of the developed world does similar) & hold the vote on a Saturday (I wonder how many blue collar workers in the US chose not to vote because of the incoveniance of voting on a Tuesday), using local schools as voting centres. Then leasing indoor stadiums & convention centres nationwide which are to be used as counting centres for the thousands of temp workers employed to count the votes. Each counter also has a Labour & conservative scrutineer looking over his/her shoulders.

    It's extremely rare for results to not be known before the weekend is out (actually results mostly come out on the Saturday night, meaning people can go to election result parties & still be ok for work on Monday)

    Sure its labour intensive, but as any UN election observer will tell you this is the best system if you want high turnouts with low rates of invalid votes & a result that's as accurate as can be, by Monday morning at the latest (actually in the vast majority of elections we know who's won by about 8pm the same night).

    Now I bet someone will think 'oh but the US is much bigger than Australia', well my answer is no problem, the US having a nationwide hand paper ballot election would be no different than if Australia the UK, Germany the Netherlands & the Scandinavian countries all voted the same day, IE there's no reason to think it won't scale up fine.

    Also all politicians must be removed from any decision making processes as far as the running of elections are concerned, etc.

    Look at the way democratic afiliated local officials OKed the hand count iin Palm Beach & then the Republican Florida SoS blocked the hand count (& she was Bush's co-campaign manager, which makes it an even worse conflict of interest). That sort of thing is unheard of in Australia. Where an Independent Australian Electoral Commision administers federal elections & the various state electoral commisions administers state & local elections.

    No politians are involved anywhere in the decision making process (except for calling the date of the election). As far as recounts, re-votes, referendums (in Australia politions can't amend the constitution, only the people can through referendums. Where a majority of the total votes & a majority in a majority of states, responds 'yes' to the amendment) & by-elections, etc are concerned only the electoral commision can make decisions regarding them. Although anyone can appeal to the commision's court, for a recount or re vote or something. Whether such appeals are successful is another matter.



    1. Re:voting machines are stupid by dhogaza · · Score: 4, Informative
      Then there are places like Oregon where all votes are of the mail in variety (which obviously discriminates against the homeless & disorginised).

      You have to provide an address to register to vote in Oregon anyway, this was true before vote by mail, so it is no more discriminatory against the homeless than the traditional system.

      Why is an address required? Because many votes are regional in nature, in other words I can only vote for Congressional candidates in my Congressional District, and your stated home address is used to determine your precinct voting station, Congressional District, state office districts, etc.

      In Australia, are you allowed to simply walk into any polling venue in the country and vote? Are you not asked for identification? (identification, such as a driver's license or non-driver's ID card, requires an address here in Oregon, too). If you don't have to provide ID and address, what is to prevent you from voting several times in several different polling stations?


      Vote by mail is a great convenience for folks like my father, who is elderly and a semi-invalid, yet still bright. The convenience of being able to sit in your own living room, studying ballot measures and candidates, the arguments for and against published in the voters guide (which often runs in excess of 100 pages), is a great convenience for folkd like my elderly father.

      Vote by mail is a smash hit here in Oregon. None of the predicted problems have materialized. Among other things it would seem to fit your KISS criteria exceptionally well. And it requires a paper ballot, you should like that as well.

    2. Re:voting machines are stupid by RobinH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Being Canadian, I had the same initial reaction as you, but you don't understand the U.S. voting system. Voting in the U.S. is like filling out a tax form... it just goes on forever and ever. You have to vote for everything at once - local, state, etc., and there seem to be "sub votes" within them. Not to mention, they elect their judges and senate.

      I know what you're feeling though - in Canada we use a pencil and a piece of paper. There are, say, 5 local candidates, each with a little box beside their name and you vote for one of those five by putting an 'X' in the box. However, we don't vote separately for the leader of the country, since we have a parliamentary system. Plus, our senate and judges are appointed by elected officials.

      It does make sense though, with such low minimum wages, that the U.S. could afford to just hire people off the street to hand count ballots.

      As for storing them electronically, that's a bad idea. Most people would not (and should not) accept various decaying charges on a vast bank of capacitors (I'm speaking of DRAM, of course), or magnetic deviations on a disk as proof of someone's vote. There really needs to be physical evidence that a real person can see and verify, or else the system can too easily be corrupted. ... all of a sudden I feel like I should go and get all my money out of the bank!

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  13. Why not use both computers and paper by jonin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be easier to create a system that allows people to vote using a touch screen system, then instead of trying to save the data (which could easily be corrupted or lost,) simply print the ballot. It could print two copies, one for the person to take home as a personal voting record and one that they put in the polling box. The ballot that is given to the state could even be encoded so that it cannot be read without a computer in order to maintain privacy, while the copy the person keeps could be in plain english, spanish, or whatever language, so that they can confirm who they voted for. I think this would be a reasonable option that would be easier to setup (maybe.) If anything goes wrong with the machine, send them to another machine and start fresh.

  14. "Countless" by alefbet · · Score: 3, Funny
    From the story:

    By mid-morning, countless people voted without difficulty....

    Countless, eh? You mean you can't count the number of people voting? Not encouraging in my mind.

    --

    A hack is just an idiom waiting for wider use.
  15. Unconstitutional in many states by coyote-san · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sorry, but it's unconstitional in many states (Colorado is one) to use any polling method that can be used to prove how an individual has voted.

    This is a basic technique to prevent vote selling (or vote coercing, e.g., "vote for my candidate or you're fired/will lose the account/will never marry my daughter/whatever.") If you can prove how you voted, others may be tempted to "encourage" you to vote a particular way. If you can never prove it, you can lie.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
  16. fraud writ large by aminorex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    why anyone would *believe* the results tabulated
    by software that was immune to public audit gathered
    from complex and bug-prone devices operated by a
    secret mechanism is beyond my comprehension.

    given the history of democratic elections around the
    world and in the united states itself, it seems
    more than apparent that such devices, if they
    continue in use, will inevitably result in massive
    electoral fraud.

    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  17. Forget that, let's talk about rigged elections. by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nevermoind that the voting machines didn't work. Lets remember that Florida is the land of rigged elections, thanks to our little friend Katherine Harris (a bigwig Republican).

    Personally, I think her ass should be in fucking federal prison for criminal tampering with the election process. Please follow me on this one. I have been picking this one up on the way all through the AP wires (I get access at work) and a good book by Michael Moore called Stupid White Men that I have been reading.

    Shortly before the election even began, Katherine Harris decided to expunge the system of any felons that might be in the system. Those felons were (by vast majority in America on average) usually of African-American descent. Finding and removing all of these felons would have been a herculean task, so Katherine Harris and all of her election board members decided to go with a close match criteria to expedite the removal of felons in the system. The Election Commission also sent out memos to other states to give them lists of other possible felons that may have moved to Florida. Take a big stab on the only state that gave them a possible list.

    TEXAS. That's right. Texas.

    SO WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF THIS? Thousands, and I mean thousands, of African-American voters that were NOT FELONS got turned away at the polls for matching up all of their kangaroo court requirements. THOUSANDS OF AFRICAN AMRERICANS, CITIZENS WHO EARNED THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE THE HARDEST WAY IN AMERICA COULD NOT VOTE. Imagine getting to the polls and getting turned away. Now imagine being black in America and getting turned away.

    Here's another one: Entire districts were lost or counted as null or erroneous in Florida elections... or the locations were moved entirely. TAKE A STAB ON THE MAKEUP OF THESE DISTRICTS. If you guessed African-American, you'd be dead on the money. This is a PROVEN FACT. The election commission only messed with black districts.

    DID KATHERINE HARRIS AND ALL OF HER ASSOCIATES GO TO JAIL? No. Actually she ran for US Senate. What a payback to get all of that campaign funds. I wonder where she got them.

    In an interview Katherine Harris said that if Gore had been nice to her, he might have been president. After the fact, that ego alone tells me that all of the allegations are pretty much true. That statement alone wants me to see her go to prison even more.

    So here is the question... with all of this crap going on in the system. Why is it that we don't vote? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER. THATS WHY. But many of us are out there for the reason to get our votes back. And we will. We will be watching the election commissions. You all should. Especially in America, where election commissions are appointed by the local bigwigs.